Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 > September 1982 Decisions > G.R. No. L-48547 September 21, 1982 - ALFONSO ANGLIONGTO, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

202 Phil. 215:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-48547. September 21, 1982.]

ALFONSO ANGLIONGTO, JR., Petitioner-Appellant, v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, JESUS GEVEROLA, JOSE GEVEROLA, FELISA GEVEROLA, and MARCELO CAPUNO, Respondents-Appellees.

Antonio A. Fernandez for Petitioner-Appellant.

Isidro M. Ampig for Private Respondents.

SYNOPSIS


When brothers and sisters Jesus, Jose, Felisa and Luisa Geverola (herein private respondents) become orphans in their young years, their grand uncle, Bernardo Geverola, who was then the owner of the 32-hectare coconut land being disputed in the instant case, took them into his custody, cared for them, sent them to school and treated them like his own children. When the children were capable of working the land, they were respectively assigned distinct portions thereof and were required to give their grand uncle only 25 percent of the produce, the other 75 percent to remain with them for their individual needs. In contrast to the other persons who worked on the land, no specific arrangement was ever entered into by Bernardo and his wards. When Bernardo died, the subject property passed on to his only child upon whose demise, the property was acquired by petitioner at a mortgage foreclosure sale. In the ensuing agrarian case, private respondents claimed that they were tenants in the portions of the land they were respectively occupying and therefore entitled to exercise the right of preemption to buy the land. The agrarian trial court ruled that private respondents were not tenants and ordered them to vacate the portions they were occupying. The Court of Appeals, however, ruled that private respondents were tenants. Hence this petition.

On review, the Supreme Court held that Section 6 of the Agricultural Tenancy Act (R.A. 1199) does not envision agricultural tenancy relationship governable under the Act, the arrangement among persons whose family relationship and ways of dealing with one another of which are like those between Bernardo Geverola and private respondents, particularly where there is no substantial proof when and how and under what circumstances related to tenancy the arrangement made by Bernardo of apportioning specific parts of the land be owned among respondents, reached a point of being "the agreement" that Section 6 refers to; consequently, private respondents are not tenants and therefore not entitled to the right of preemption claimed by them as against petitioner.

Assailed decision reversed.


SYLLABUS


LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; AGRICULTURAL TENANCY ACT (REPUBLIC ACT 1199); SECTION 6; TENANCY AGREEMENT; NOT A CASE OF. — The language of Section 6 of the Agricultural Tenancy Act (Republic Act 1199) expressly requires not only that there should be a landowner and someone working on his land, but more explicitly it is necessary that the landowner and the one working must have agreed, either expressly or implicitly "to undertake jointly the cultivation of the land under either a share tenancy or leasehold arrangement." Surely, for a man to make his foster grandchildren help him by assigning to them specific portions of the land he owns, even if they may retain for themselves 75% of the produce, is to Us not a tenancy arrangement but a distribution of work among the members of one family, so that none of them may have to depend on the other for all his needs. It is rather absurd to think of tenancy relationship between father and children — and the same goes for those similarly related as former landowner Bernardo Geverola and respondents were to each other. Indeed, Section 6 of Republic Act 1199 should not be construed further than what it evidently contemplates. The said provision does not envision agricultural tenancy relationship governable under the act, the arrangement among persons whose family relationship and ways of dealing with one another are like those between Bernardo Geverola and private respondents, particularly where there is no substantial proof when and how and under what specific circumstances related to tenancy the arrangement made by Bernardo, of apportioning specific parts of the land be owned among respondents, reached the point of being "the agreement" that Section 6 refers to.


D E C I S I O N


BARREDO, J.:


Petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. SP-07099, which reversed the decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations of Davao City wherein said agrarian court upheld the contention of herein petitioner that herein private respondents Jesus Geverola, Jose Geverola (now deceased, leaving two minor children who are represented by Jesus Geverola, as their guardian-ad-litem). Felisa Geverola and Marcelo Capuno, as husband of or together with his wife Luisa Geverola, were never tenants of the primitive owner of the 32 hectares of land in question, hence not entitled to the right of preemption claimed by them as against herein petitioner, the purchaser at auction of the said property at the mortgage-foreclosure sale thereof.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

The original owner of the land in question was named Bernardo Geverola. When he died, his estate was settled in Special Proceedings No. 4 of the Court of First Instance of Davao del Sur, wherein his only child Isidoro Geverola was declared as his sole heir to the property herein in dispute. Subsequently, Isidoro also died and his estate was settled in Special Proceedings No. 55 of the Court of First Instance of Davao City at the instance of herein petitioner, who, as the record indicates, was the only holder of a credit against said deceased in the amount of over P45,000.00, including interest, a debt secured by a mortgage on said property. Since the indebtedness remained unpaid on its due date, the mortgage was foreclosed and at the auction sale, Petitioner, who at the same time was administrator of the estate, was the sole bidder and ultimate purchaser for the amount of the indebtedness.

The foregoing facts do not appear to be controverted nor is any legal issue raised regarding the same, except as to the pretended right of private respondents of preemption in their favor to purchase the portions of said property which they claimed they respectively were working on as agricultural tenants, first, of Bernardo and later of Isidoro Geverola, which right of preemption, they allege was denied to them by the trial court albeit recognized subsequently by the Court of Appeals.

The record is cluttered with incidents regarding which the parties have filed with Us corresponding pleadings. We believe, however, that by deciding the main issue between them, the corresponding legal consequences of the acts involved in said incidents, which do not affect the merits of such main issue, would necessarily be deemed accordingly resolved.

As earlier intimated, the principal issue before Us is whether or not herein private respondents should be considered in law as agricultural tenants of the owner of the land in dispute within the contemplation of Section 6 of Republic Act 1199, the Agricultural Tenancy Act. Corollarily, on the assumption that they should be considered as such, are they entitled to preemption over herein petitioner in purchasing the said property?

Resolving the issue of tenancy, the trial court made the following disposition:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In a report submitted by the Commission created by the Court for the purpose to determine the actual coconut plantings of defendants and those assigned to defendants Capuno and Felisa Geverola, the records show the following: Jesus Geverola has about 4 hectares occupied area, planted to 223 coconuts, aged more than 20 years old, 97 coconuts, aged 1 to 5 years old, and 21 coconuts, aged 6 to 7 years old; Lupercio Matarlo has 3 and 1/2 hectares occupied area planted to 330 coconuts, aged more than 20 years old, 206 coconuts, aged 1 to 2 years old; Jose Geverola has 1 and 1/2 hectares occupied area planted to 110 coconuts, aged more than 20 years old 107 coconuts aged 1 to 5 years old (Exh. "D"); Melecia Gacera has about 1 hectare occupied area planted to 72 coconuts, aged more than 20 years old (Exh. "D-2"); Marcelo Capuno has about 3 hectares occupied area, planted to 51 coconuts, aged more than 20 years old, 113 coconuts, aged 1 to 5 years old, 238 coconuts assigned to him by the former owner Bernardo Geverola and Felisa Geverola has about 2 hectares occupied area, planted to 46 coconuts, aged more than 20 years old, 27 coconuts, aged 1 to 5 years old, and 145 coconuts assigned to her by the former owner Bernardo Geverola (Exh. "D-4").

"The landholding in question is a coconut land and its main and principal crop is coconut and/or copra. The records clearly show that defendants Jesus Geverola, Jose Geverola, Felisa Geverola and the wife of Marcelo Capuno named Luisa Geverola are brothers and sisters and were left orphans in their young years. They were taken by their granduncle Bernardo Geverola, the former owner of the land in question for care, custody and support. During that time Jose the youngest was 1 year old, Jesus, 4 years old, Felisa, 6 years old, Luisa, 9 years old as admitted by Jose Geverola in his testimony on cross examination and corroborated by Jesus Geverola in his cross-examination (Tsn., pp. 142-143, November I8, 1975 hearing). They lived with Bernardo Geverola in the latter’s house since they became orphans until they got married except Felisa who remained single and stayed with her granduncle until he died. They also admitted that when they were with their granduncle and during his lifetime while in his care, they were sent to school aside from giving them full support of their needs in life. While the records do not disclose the kind of attention Bernardo Geverola gave to his grandnephews and grandnieces, it can be deduced from the treatment given them, as admitted, that they are treated as his own children. When defendants and Luisa became older and could extend manual help they, as members of a family, were given assignments of work to perform for the good of the family. Defendant Jesus Geverola claimed to have cleared a portion of the land in question at the age of 14 years which is possible considering that he had to in order to help his granduncle to develop the said land. At that time his brother defendant Jose Geverola was 10 years old, his sister Felisa Geverola, 16 years old and Luisa who later became the wife of defendant Capuno, 19 years old.

"As close relative who had taken for himself the responsibility of bringing up his grandnephews and grandnieces, Bernardo Geverola supported and sheltered them as a real father would do to his offsprings. And like father to them he had to apply discipline and assigned them individual work to help him develop the land in question commensurate to their ages and abilities to perform such work. Time came when defendants Jesus, Jose, Felisa and Luisa all surnamed Geverola came to age but still unmarried when they could be relied upon to perform farm work and Bernardo Geverola had to assign each of them certain area to work on, plant coconuts therein not in concept as his tenants but as close relatives having taken them as his children. Considering that they are under his care and support, Jesus, Jose, Felisa and Luisa all surnamed Geverola accepted the work and occupied their respective portions since then up to the present as determined by the Court’s commissioners in their report (Exhs. "D" to "D-4"). Plaintiff does not question the occupation of the corresponding area by defendants Jesus Geverola, Jose Geverola, Felisa Geverola and Luisa’s husband Marcelo Capuno because they had been there long before he became the Judicial Administrator of the landholding. He, however, belied and opposed their claim as share tenants in the land but were agricultural workers or copraceros therein.

"Having observed the kinship and close family ties of said defendants with the former landowner Bernardo Geverola who took care of them since childhood, it is opened and this Court holds that said defendants are not share tenants in the land but household helpers of the landowner Bernardo Geverola their granduncle the way children in their young life do to their foster father who loved them like his own children. The special treatment he gave to his grandnephews and grandnieces by giving them specified area of land to work on and raise coconuts and process same to copra on 75% — 25% sharing in defendants’ favor as alleged by them is not an evidence of tenancy relationship but a special favor or treatment given to them as close kins in an atmosphere of family solidarity living together in the same house. This favor must necessarily terminate upon the wishes of the giver or upon his death. The death of Bernardo Geverola began the bitter struggle for possession and ownership of the land in question including the improvements thereof, between Isidoro Geverola and defendants herein joined by other close relatives which resulted in the victory of Isidoro Geverola who had been adjudged the legal heir of Bernardo Geverola by the proper court. The defendants also questioned Isidoro Geverola’s right to receive the landowner’s share in the landholdings produce before the Court of Agrarian Relations at Davao City, in Car Case No. 1310."cralaw virtua1aw library

x       x       x


"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing consideration, judgment is hereby rendered:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) Finding that defendants Jesus Geverola, Jose Geverola, Felisa Geverola, Marcelo Capuno and Melecia Gacera and husband are not agricultural tenants in the landholding in question but only recipients of a special favor over the fruits of the land they respectively occupy given by Bernardo Geverola the owner of the said land as a close kin being a granduncle. This special favor ceased or was terminated upon the death of Bernardo Geverola the benefactor;

"(2) Ordering defendants Jesus Geverola, Jose Geverola, Felisa Geverola, Marcelo Capuno, Melecia Gacera and her husband to surrender to plaintiff Alfonso Angliongto, Jr. the possession of their respective portions of occupation as verified in the Commissioners’ report (Exhs.’D’ to ‘D-4’) and vacate said portions immediately." (Page 43, Record).

These conclusions were reversed by the Court of Appeals this wise:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"As a general rule, findings of fact of the Agrarian Court are not to be disturbed on appeal but when these are not supported by substantial evidence and the conclusions are not in accordance with law and jurisprudence, this court is not bound to sustain them, as in the instant case, in which the evidence discloses that appellants herein cultivated and planted coconuts on their respective farmholdings assigned to them by the deceased owner; that these farmholdings do not exceed 5 hectare each, which is susceptible to cultivation by a single person, personally or with the aid of members of his immediate household; that these coconuts were to be processed to copra on a 75%-25% sharing in defendants’ favor when the tenants themselves planted the trees and 2/3-1/3 sharing in the landowner’s favor when the coconut trees were not planted by the tenants themselves; that this system was observed by the late landowner and appellants herein since the latter were old enough to work on the land respectively assigned to them by the former.

"Contrary to the lower court’s finding, these are indicative of a tenancy relationship, the elements of which are found in the definition under Section 6 of the Agricultural Tenancy Act, No. 1199, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Sec. 6. Tenancy Relationship: Its Definition. — Tenancy relationship is a juridical tie which arises between a landholder and a tenant, once they agree, expressly or impliedly, to undertake jointly the cultivation of land belonging to the former, either under the share tenancy or leasehold tenancy system, as a result of which relationship the tenant acquires the right to continue working on and cultivating the land, until and unless he is dispossessed of his landholdings for any of the just causes enumerated in Section fifty or the relationship is terminated in accordance with Section nine.

"From the foregoing definition, it is clear that the person cultivating the land need not have an express agreement or contract with the landowner, contrary to plaintiff-appellee’s contention, nor is it necessary that consent be given wholeheartedly, it being sufficient even if the consent is given out of pity (CAR Case No. 842, Iloilo, ‘59, Feb. 6, 1960, citing Acasio v. Corp. de los PP. Dominicos de Filipinas, 53 O. G. 8066, cited in Montemayor, LABOR AGRARIAN and SOCIAL LEGISLATION, p. 34, 1964 ed.) as in the case a quo." (Pp. 28-29, Record.).

To be sure, as can be seen above, the Court of Appeals did make reference to its prerogative to reverse findings of fact of the agrarian courts which are not supported by substantial evidence. However, it is at once obvious from its ratiocination that it was not really for disregarding the substantiality rule that it faulted the trial court, but rather, as We see it, for His Honor’s having drawn what the appellant court considered as erroneous inferences or deductions from the facts which the said appellate court found uncontroverted even in the decision of the trial court itself. To put it otherwise, whereas the trial court concluded that from the close relationship between Bernardo Geverola and herein private respondents and the parental treatment he accorded them from the time they were orphaned when they were all less than ten years of age, keeping them in his own home and schooling them as if they were his own children, plus the absence of any evidence at all of any agreement, even verbal, of any tenancy arrangement entered into at any time between him and said respondents, it was unnatural and not in conformity with usual human experience to believe that Bernardo ever thought of himself as the landlord and his grandnephews and grandnieces who were living with him as his tenants, even as he assigned to them as they were growing to be of sufficient age to work and got married particular portions of the property in dispute, to the extent of giving them specific shares in the produce, on the other hand, the Court of Appeals arrived at the opposite conclusion based solely on the language of Section 6 of Rep. Act 1199 We have quoted earlier.

As it appears then, in disagreeing with the ultimate conclusion of the trial court, the Court of Appeals reviewed a legal inference or deduction from a given set of undisputed facts, and in so doing made a conclusion of law, not of fact. It drew a legal characterization of the factual milieu — it did not make an exclusively factual conclusion. Such being the case, it cannot be said that it is beyond Our power to modify or alter, as We might deem warranted, the conclusion of the Court of Appeals.

Our task then is to determine whose characterization of the working arrangement between Bernardo Geverola, on the one hand, and the respondents, on the other, that of the trial court or that of the Court of Appeals, is nearer to the true nature in law of said relationship. In this regard, We are more inclined to sustain the trial court.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

There can be no question that it was Bernardo’s compassion and concern for the respondents that motivated his taking them into his own home to give them all the parental care they needed, very young orphans as they were. He attended to their needs and provided for their education. As they grew older, it was but natural for him to expect he could make them help him in his own work. At the age of 14, respondent Jesus Geverola began to help in clearing a portion of the land in question. And as they all became more capable of helping in farm work, they were respectively assigned distinct portions of the land for each of them to work separately. Some of the produce, such as corn, went to a common pool for all of them to enjoy. Of the coconuts, Bernardo required them to give him only 25%, the 75% to remain with them respectively for their own individual needs. In contrast to the other persons who worked on the land, the record does not show that any specific tenancy arrangement was ever entered into between Bernardo and respondents. Indeed, it is inconceivable that he would entertain the idea of making them his tenants in the sense agricultural tenants are known under the Tenancy Act.

We are not persuaded that Section of the Tenancy Act should be construed in the sense adopted by the Court of Appeals. The language of the provision expressly requires not only that there should be a landowner and someone working on his land, but more explicitly it is necessary that the landowner and the one working must have agreed, either expressly or implicitly "to undertake jointly the cultivation of the land under either a share tenancy or leasehold arrangement." Surely, for a man to make his foster grandchildren help him by assigning to them specific portions of the land he owns, even if they may retain for themselves 75% of the produce, is to Us not a tenancy arrangement but a distribution of work among the members of one family, so that none of them may have to depend on the other for all his needs. It is rather absurd to think of tenancy relationship between father and children — and the same goes for those similarly related as Bernardo and respondents were to each other.

In this connection, it is very significant that when the instant case started, there were many other defendants who made the same pretense of tenancy relationship. But as observed by the trial court, "defendant Felipe Galeos executed an affidavit stating that he has no more interest in the case (Exh.’A’); Gaudencio Geverola and his wife Angela Geverola executed a joint affidavit stating that they both lost interest in the case (Exh.’B’); Venancia Saavedra Vda. de Kintanar executed a document withdrawing from the case having sold her coconut plantings in the landholding to plaintiff for P3,000.00 (Exh.’E’); Genaro Geverola executed a document withdrawing from the case having sold his coconut plantings to plaintiff for P1,000.00 (Exh.’F’); Miguel Kintanar acknowledged having sold his alleged coconut plantings to plaintiff for P1,000.00 and therefore, he has no more interest in the case (Exh.’G’); Juanita L. Vda. de Geverola acknowledged payment of her alleged coconut plantings for P1,000.00 and has no more interest in the case (Exh.’H’); Patricia Geverola Albert and husband acknowledged to have sold their alleged coconut plantings to plaintiff for P9,000.00 and therefore, lost their interest in the case (Exh.’I’ and ‘I-1’); and Leona Kintanar Flores acknowledged to have sold her alleged coconut plantings for P5,500.00 and has lost interest in the case (Exh.’J ‘ and ‘J-1’)." (Pp. 15-16, Record.) These withdrawals indicate significantly that in truth and in fact, Bernardo hardly thought of tenancy arrangements with his kinds. True it is that the record is bereft of clear information as to how those who withdrew their claims were related to Bernardo, compared to herein appellants, but at least six of them were Geverolas and three were Kintanars. This fact suggests close family relationship among them rooted Bernardo. Whatever that relationship might be, the point is, if those who have not been shown to be closer relatives of Bernardo have withdrawn their claim of tenancy relationship, virtually denying the same, albeit upon payment of their plantings, it is hard to imagine how herein respondents could have been placed in a different plane by Bernardo.

Indeed, Section 6 of Republic Act 1199 should not be construed further than what it evidently contemplates. We are of the considered opinion that said provision does not envision agricultural tenancy relationship governable under the Act, the arrangement among persons whose family relationship and ways of dealing with one another are like those between Bernardo Geverola and herein respondents, particularly where there is no substantial proof when and how and under what specific circumstances related to tenancy the arrangement made by Bernardo, of apportioning specific parts of the land be owned among respondents, reached the point of being "the agreement" that Section 6 refers to.

With the foregoing conclusion We have arrived at, namely, that there was no agricultural tenancy relationship between Bernardo Geverola and respondents, all other issues and incidents in the instant case resolve themselves accordingly, and no further discussion thereof is necessary.

Regarding the aspect of this case affecting Ruperto Matarlo subject of the motion of private respondents of December 3, 1979, We cannot make any pronouncement on the same, for the simple reason that said party has not appealed to Us the portion of the decision of the appellate court affirming that of the trial court insofar as he is concerned.

IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE PREMISES, judgment is hereby rendered reversing the decision of the Court of Appeals under review and affirming that of the trial court, without costs.

Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro and Escolin, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions


AQUINO, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I dissent. I vote for the affirmance of the decision of the Court of Appeals whose factual findings are binding in this Court.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






September-1982 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-31276 September 9, 1982 - NATIONAL LABOR UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 1

  • G.R. No. L-31854 September 9, 1982 - NICANOR T. SANTOS v. ROSA GANAYO

    202 Phil. 16

  • G.R. No. L-32260 September 9, 1982 - RAYMUNDA VDA. DE SAN JUAN, ET AL. v. SIXTO TAN

    202 Phil. 31

  • G.R. No. L-38579 September 9, 1982 - JULIET T. DIOQUINO v. NICANOR J. CRUZ, JR., ET AL.

    202 Phil. 35

  • G.R. No. L-39154 September 9, 1982 - LITEX EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40641 September 9, 1982 - FILOMENO ABROT, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 53

  • G.R. No. L-42335 September 9, 1982 - PEDRO AMIGABLE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 64

  • G.R. No. L-52410 September 9, 1982 - FLORO ENTERPRISES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 66

  • G.R. No. L-40791 September 11, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO MALATE

    202 Phil. 74

  • G.R. No. L-41115 September 11, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48756 September 11, 1982 - K.O. GLASS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. v. MANUEL VALENZUELA

  • G.R. No. L-49524 September 11, 1982 - LEONARDO GONZALES, ET AL. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 151

  • G.R. No. L-59825 September 11, 1982 - ERNESTO MEDINA, ET AL. v. FLORELIANA CASTRO-BARTOLOME

    202 Phil. 163

  • G.R. No. L-60368 September 11, 1982 - BEATRIZ DE ZUZUARREGUI VDA. DE REYES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 172

  • A.C. No. 2784-M September 21, 1982 - CECILIO P. IYOG v. LEONARDO L. SERRANO

    202 Phil. 175

  • G.R. No. L-23106 September 21, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GAUDENCIO EMANENCE

    202 Phil. 179

  • G.R. No. L-28774 September 21, 1982 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 200

  • G.R. No. L-27886 September 21, 1982 - CELSO VALERA v. DOMINGO BAÑEZ

    202 Phil. 193

  • G.R. No. L-29255 September 21, 1982 - LEONARDO MIÑANO, ET AL. v. ALBERTO MIÑANO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 213

  • G.R. No. L-48547 September 21, 1982 - ALFONSO ANGLIONGTO, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 215

  • G.R. No. L-55315 September 21, 1982 - WILLIAM COLE, ET AL. v. POTENCIANA CASUGA VDA. DE GREGORIO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 226

  • G.R. No. L-56014 September 21, 1982 - SANTIAGO SYJUCO, INC. v. JOSE TECSON

    202 Phil. 240

  • G.R. No. L-56902 September 21, 1982 - CONFEDERATION OF CITIZENS LABOR UNIONS, ET AL. v. CARMELO C. NORIEL, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 249

  • G.R. No. L-57892 September 21, 1982 - ANASTACIO AREVALO v. VALENTIN QUILATAN

    202 Phil. 256

  • G.R. No. L-59962 September 21, 1982 - RICARTE B. VILLEGAS v. RAMON MONTAÑO

    202 Phil. 265

  • G.R. No. L-22414 September 23, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO BUENAVENTURA, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 270

  • G.R. No. L-36850 September 23, 1982 - ROSARIO PEREZ, ET AL. v. PILAR ONG CHUA, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 287

  • G.R. No. L-50905 September 23, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO JUMAWAN

    202 Phil. 294

  • G.R. No. L-52178 September 28, 1982 - DEMETRIO ERNESTO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 310

  • A.C. No. 439 September 30, 1982 - IN RE: QUINCIANO D. VAILOCES

    202 Phil. 322

  • A.C. No. 681 September 30, 1982 - ELISEO GUEVARA v. MAXIMO CALALANG

    202 Phil. 328

  • A.M. No. 1879-MJ September 30, 1982 - ROSALITO FAJARDO v. GUALBERTO B. BACARRO, SR., ET AL.

    202 Phil. 332

  • A.M. No. 1888-CFI September 30, 1982 - FRANCISCO I. PULIDO v. MAGNO B. PABLO

    202 Phil. 336

  • A.M. No. 2415-CFI September 30, 1982 - TOMAS SHAN, JR. v. CANDIDO C. AGUINALDO

    202 Phil. 354

  • A.M. No. P-2710 September 30, 1982 - BARBARA PIOQUINTO v. LUCRECIA A. HERNANDEZ

    202 Phil. 360

  • G.R. No. L-25778 September 30, 1982 - JOESTEEL CONTAINER CORPORATION v. COMMONWEALTH FINANCING CORPORATION

    202 Phil. 364

  • G.R. No. L-26243 September 30, 1982 - CLARA REGALARIO v. NORTHWEST FINANCE CORPORATION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 366

  • G.R. No. L-26289 September 30, 1982 - IN RE: JUAN N. PECKSON v. GABRIEL F. ANADASE, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 374

  • G.R. No. L-27695 September 30, 1982 - ANTONIO CALLANTA v. MANUEL LOPEZ ENAGE, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 377

  • G.R. No. L-27819 September 30, 1982 - HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY v. UNITED STATES LINES COMPANY, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 381

  • G.R. No. L-28501 September 30, 1982 - PEDRO ARCE v. CAPITAL INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC., Defendant-Appellant.

    202 Phil. 386

  • G.R. No. L-28996 September 30, 1982 - MAXIMO SANTOS, ET AL. v. GENERAL WOODCRAFT AND DESIGN CORPORATION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 390

  • G.R. No. L-29086 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDILBERTO GOMEZ, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 395

  • G.R. No. L-29590 September 30, 1982 - PHILIPPINE REFINING CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 402

  • G.R. No. L-29636 September 30, 1982 - FILOIL MARKETING CORPORATION v. MARINE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF THE PHIL.

    202 Phil. 410

  • G.R. No. L-30353 September 30, 1982 - PATRICIO BELLO v. EUGENIA UBO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 415

  • G.R. No. L-30452 September 30, 1982 - MERCURY DRUG CO., INC. v. NARDO DAYAO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 424

  • G.R. No. L-30455 September 30, 1982 - MARIA LANDAYAN, ET AL. v. ANGEL BACANI, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 440

  • G.R. No. L-30675 September 30, 1982 - HAWAIIAN-PHIL COMPANY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 445

  • G.R. No. L-30994 September 30, 1982 - OLIMPIA BASA, ET AL. v. ANDRES C. AGUILAR, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 452

  • G.R. No. L-31226 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO BELLO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 456

  • G.R. No. L-32383 September 30, 1982 - BAZA MARKETING CORPORATION v. BOLINAO SECURITY AND INVESTIGATION SERVICE, INC.

    202 Phil. 478

  • G.R. No. L-32860 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO MARQUEZ, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 488

  • G.R. No. L-33995 September 30, 1982 - ELISEO C. DE GUZMAN v. ONOFRE A. VILLALUZ, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 503

  • G.R. No. L-34200 September 30, 1982 - REGINA L. EDILLON, ET AL. v. MANILA BANKERS LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 508

  • G.R. No. L-34947 September 30, 1982 - ESTEBAN MEDINA, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO MA. CHANCO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 515

  • G.R. No. L-37431 September 30, 1982 - PEDRO ENTERA, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

    202 Phil. 521

  • G.R. No. L-37733 September 30, 1982 - ALMARIO T. SALTA v. JESUS DE VEYRA

    202 Phil. 527

  • G.R. No. L-38603 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PACIANO CHAVEZ, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 535

  • G.R. No. L-38728 September 30, 1982 - CONRADO V. MACATANGAY v. CHAIRMAN OF COMMISSION ON AUDIT

    202 Phil. 545

  • G.R. No. L-39026 September 30, 1982 - SOTERO RECTO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 553

  • G.R. No. L-39401 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERTO SIMBRA, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 558

  • G.R. No. L-39644 September 30, 1982 - EDUARDO BIEN, ET AL. v. DELFIN VIR. SUNGA, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 565

  • G.R. No. L-39716 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO D. GABIANA

    202 Phil. 577

  • G.R. No. L-40842 September 30, 1982 - BENJAMIN A. G. VEGA, ET AL. v. DOMINGO D. PANIS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 587

  • G.R. No. L-41052 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HENRY GASENDO

    202 Phil. 600

  • G.R. No. L-43783 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLIAM BOKINGKITO TERANO

    202 Phil. 610

  • G.R. No. 44033 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO B. BESO, JR.

    202 Phil. 618

  • G.R. No. L-44408 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO SAMBILI

    202 Phil. 629

  • G.R. No. L-45430 September 30, 1982 - DESA ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL. v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 639

  • G.R. No. L-45436 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE PON-AN

    202 Phil. 653

  • G.R. No. L-45679 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO MENDOZA

    202 Phil. 660

  • G.R. Nos. L-46068-69 September 30, 1982 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46125 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEON ALVIS, JR.

    202 Phil. 682

  • G.R. No. L-48478 September 30, 1982 - AGUSMIN PROMOTIONAL ENTERPRISES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48727 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH D. LEONES

    202 Phil. 703

  • G.R. No. L-48747 September 30, 1982 - ANGEL JEREOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 715

  • G.R. No. L-49307 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR MALATE

    202 Phil. 721

  • G.R. No. L-49990 September 30, 1982 - UNITED STATES LINES, INC. v. AMADO INCIONG, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 729

  • G.R. No. L-50378 September 30, 1982 - FILINVEST CREDIT CORPORATION v. BENJAMIN RELOVA

    202 Phil. 741

  • G.R. No. L-51042 September 30, 1982 - DIONISIO MALACORA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 756

  • G.R. No. L-52059 September 30, 1982 - BONIFACIA CALVERO v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 774

  • G.R. No. L-52061 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALUSTIANO LOOD

    202 Phil. 792

  • G.R. No. L-53627 September 30, 1982 - CAPITAL GARMENT CORPORATION v. BLAS OPLE, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 797

  • G.R. No. L-53983 September 30, 1982 - LUCIANA DALIDA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-54204 September 30, 1982 - NORSE MANAGEMENT CO., ET AL. v. NATIONAL SEAMEN BOARD, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-54272-73 September 30, 1982 - JUAN C. CALUBAQUIB v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 817

  • G.R. No. L-54280 September 30, 1982 - ITOGON-SUYOC MINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 850

  • G.R. No. L-55225 September 30, 1982 - HEIRS OF CATALINO JARDIN, ET AL v. HEIRS OF SIXTO HALLASGO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 858

  • G.R. No. L-56624 September 30, 1982 - DARNOC REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. AYALA CORPORATION

    202 Phil. 865

  • G.R. Nos. L-56950-51 September 30, 1982 - M. F. VIOLAGO OILER TANK TRUCKS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 872

  • G.R. No. L-57387 September 30, 1982 - UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST v. UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST FACULTY ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 881

  • G.R. No. L-58187 September 30, 1982 - REMEDIOS VELASCO VDA. DE CALDITO v. ROSALIO C. SEGUNDO, ETC., ET AL.

    202 Phil. 900

  • G.R. No. L-58452 September 30, 1982 - RAZA APPLIANCE CENTER v. ROLANDO R. VILLARAZA

    202 Phil. 903

  • G.R. No. L-58610 September 30, 1982 - BABELO BERIÑA, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE MARITIME INSTITUTE, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 908

  • G.R. No. L-58623 September 30, 1982 - NATIONAL MINES AND ALLIED WORKERS’ UNION v. DOMINGO CORONEL REYES

    202 Phil. 912

  • G.R. No. L-58820 September 30, 1982 - BENITO E. DOMINGUEZ, JR. v. FILIPINAS INTEGRATED SERVICES CORPORATION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 916

  • G.R. No. L-59234 September 30, 1982 - TAXICAB OPERATORS OF METRO MANILA, INC., ET AL. v. BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 925

  • G.R. No. L-59935 September 30, 1982 - FLORA DE GRACIA REGNER VDA. DE DAYRIT v. JOSE R. RAMOLETE

    202 Phil. 937

  • G.R. No. L-60367 September 30, 1982 - VENUSTIANO T. TAVORA v. ROSARIO R. VELOSO

    202 Phil. 943

  • G.R. No. L-60602 September 30, 1982 - IN RE: MA. DEL SOCORRO SOBREMONTE, ET AL. v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 949

  • G.R. No. L-60637 September 30, 1982 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 959

  • G.R. No. L-60842 September 30, 1982 - ROLANDO DIMACUHA v. ALFREDO B. CONCEPCION

    202 Phil. 961